As you can probably tell, relatively new to the blog here (though longtime reader). I never understood the 5 dead hookers reference with regard to James (that's not to say it wasn't funny in and of itself). I guess what I'm asking is there anything behind the joke? Other than, you know, the idea of him and 5 dead hookers is amusing.

It was started by college football blog Everyday Should be Saturday saying that the idea that Mike Leach put Craig James' son in a hot box or whatever it was was as dumb as the idea that Craig James killed 5 hookers.

I think they had to give it some time to let the process play out, to determine whether those rumors about the suspicious deaths of those HOOKERs were true. But now, who can blame them for firing him after the truth is out - the truth that he allegedly KILLED five HOOKERS!

I clearly remember James saying that Brady Hoke was the best prepared coach and one of the most impressive people he had talked to during the season and that he would be a great fit at Michigan. James may have been bad at other things but on this account he could not have been any more accurate.

He likes Brady because he was one of the people that did the announcing of the Poinsettia Bowl that SDSU destroyed Navy in. He spent most of that game gushing over how awesome Brady was. (No, really. I just watched the game online. The Hoke love came a little before the half and just kept on going.) Before that game, most of the national media hadn't really spent that much time with Brady. So the one (only?) thing Craig James did right, being one of the first people on the national scale NOT associated with Michigan to really see and call Hoke for the coach he is.

I always despised Craig James because he campaigned for Nebraska to get the MNC ahead of us in '97. I also read Mike Leach's book, in which James comes off terribly (it's just Leach"s perspective, I know, but still). So I am glad he's gone, whether or notIT IS TRUE THAT CRAIG JAMES KILLED FIVE HOOKERS.

I wouldn't worry about him winning the office, within the Republican primary he is pulling under 5 and has near universal name recognition....in other words, the people know who he is and they HATE him. Sorry to bring politics into it, I will stop now.

that 4% of the people polled say they would vote for the man. Whatever his politics might be, can you imagine telling a pollster with a straight face that you intended to vote for Craig James in a US Senate race?

The context was a question from SI's Richard Deitsch: he asked how ESPN/Disney would evaluate James's political statements if he tried to be rehired, the spokesperson said "you are asking a hypothetical since we don't intend to bring Craig back."

Two ways to read that--statements he's made during his political campaign were a little too controversial or offensive for the mothership to want to deal with, or they'd already made a decision not to hire him back so what he's saying and doing became irrelevant.

This is the best news I have heard in a long time, and something I posted here as the "best-case scenario" a few months ago. It's a lot harder to fire someone than it is to not hire them back after they leave.

I am guessing that everyone in the ESPN HR department was extremely happy when he left. He was a lightning rod for criticism and controversy, and contributed absolutely nothing to their product. Whoever stroked his ego enough to make him think he actually had a chance of winning an election should, at the very least, get a lifetime pass to every paid ESPN service.

whats wrong with Sports By Brooks? He's been one of the stalwarts in banging the "over signing needs to go" drum and is one of the only outlets who has brought attention to all the shady junk down at Alabama.